552
PARTISAN IliVIEW
Moreover, the tone of irony with which she spoke the phrase was in–
tended to distance her from the vulgarity and tyranny implied
by
"political correctness."
By now there is a consensus that "political correctness" exists, but
there are strong differences of opinion about how significant a phe–
nomenon it is. Barbara Ehrenreich writes: "I have seen P.C. culture on
college campuses, chiefly among relatively elite college students and on
relatively elite college campuses. It amounts to a form of snobbery that is
easily made fun of by the right and even by students who are not on the
right. P.C. culture, as far as I can tell, is a limited phenomenon. The
major problems on American campuses are racial and sexual harassment,
alcoholism, and the anti-intellectualism of young white Republican
males." Ehrenreich writes from outside the academy (she is a
Time
columnist), and her authority as a witness is suspect. "Chiefly among ...
elite college students" - and what of the faculty that instructs them?
Why suddenly are Republican white males singled out in a culture noto–
rious for its anti-intellectualism across political lines? "Republican white
male" is a piece of inverted bigotry.
It
is not simply that Ehrenreich is
not to be trusted as a witness; she herself in the very passage in which she
dismisses PC as silliness exemplifies its absurdity or, should I say, its seri–
ousness.
The least fruitful debates about political correctness involve charge
and countercharge based on anecdotal evidence. The debate degenerates
into bickering about the nature of the evidence and whether the evi–
dence is marginal or central. It is rare that antagonists agree about the
topic of debate. Even an apparent agreement about a topic often in–
volves misunderstanding. Take the issue of the "canon." The very word
itself is a misfortune, because as a theological trope it implies that the in–
tellectual and literary tradition is fixed and unchanging. Tradition (as in
Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent") has until recently been the
currency of discussion, and the idea of change and contestation is built
into the idea of tradition. The issue, it seems to me, is not whether
change should occur, but the nature and criteria of change . Advice: the
opponents of political correctness should change the terms of debate
from "canon" to "tradition."
The "canon bashers" or revisers, to use a more neutral term, want to
extend and change the canon to include works by women and blacks
that are worthy but have been ignored. On what basis is the worth de–
termined? (Anxiety about political correctness makes me want to reassure
my reader that of course I believe there are worthy books by women
and blacks. My concern is directed to the standards of judgment.) Since
the aesthetic category is under suspicion and value itself is insecure and
